![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:52:45 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote: Ed Rasimus wrote: On 9 Mar 2005 08:33:25 -0800, "Bob" wrote: The Navy did not use wing tanks on their F-4's. The normal external tank configuration was the single centerline tank. The reason was that wing tanks made the already cumbersome F-4 even harder to turn. Roll rate was reduced and nose high maneuvers were harder. The Navy bought a different centerline tank than USAF did. (Not sure, but as I recall it was a MacAir tank for USN and a Sargent-Fletcher for AF). From an RF-4C stores limitation chart, the USAF used McAir and Royal Jet C/L tanks. McAir and Sargent-Fletcher made the wing tanks. The McAir C/L limits are somewhat higher than the Royal Jet's, but the jettison limits are the same. You are correct--it was the Royal Jet tank, not Sargent-Fletcher. But, the flight load limits for the RJ tank are a lot lower than the McAir. As far as jettison limits (which hadn't been addressed until this point), let me suggest that anyone who was jettisoning the RJ tank at the published flight conditions was looking for a belly bumping experience. The 'rule-of-thumb' we used with good results was one G for every 100 knots of airspeed at jettison. Going 400 KIAS? Then pull to 4 G before hitting the button. Clean separation guaranteed. I'll confess to only having done it about 100 times, so others may have different experiences. The Navy tank was stressed for close to aircraft limits and with lower drag than a pair of outboard 370s made for better efficiency all around. Drag appears to be the same as a pair of 370s. Drag index of 12.8 for two 370s. Drag of 9.6 for one C/L 600. snip Normally each F-4 carried 2 Aim-7 missiles in the under fuselage cavities and four Aim-9H or G missiles on under wing pylons. Here you highlight one shortcoming of the C/L tank option. Two of the four missile wells couldn't be used. Considering the reliability of AIM-7s after a few cat shots and traps, I imagine it wasn't a big deal. And you could always punch the tank. By 1972 USAFf-4s were normally just carrying a pair of AIM-7s in the aft wells, with jamming or camera pods in the forward wells. By 1972, I was just checking out in the F-4 and arriving in theater. We were NORMALLY carrying three AIM-7s on all missions with one pod in a forward missile well. No camera pods. A M-60 gun pod (SU-23) was tested. This pod was about the size of a centerline fuel tank, fired 20mm bullets and was mainly tested to get some gun data on the M-60 which was then used exclusively by the USAF. Both SUU-23 and SUU-19 were carried by USAF F-4C and D models. Only major difference was that the -19 was RAT driven while the 23 was electrically spun. Good guns that could be very effective against ground targets. Ed, you meant SUU-16, not -19. You are correct. SUU-16. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ex USAF/RAAF QF-4G Phantom heading down under | Aerophotos | Military Aviation | 13 | May 8th 04 08:45 PM |
PBJ-1 (NAVY Mitchel) and F4 Phantom, T6 Texan and bunch of AC manuals FS | Nenad Miklusev | Military Aviation | 0 | May 2nd 04 09:24 AM |
Winch Loads / Speeds data? | Gary Emerson | Soaring | 1 | December 17th 03 08:59 AM |
How many aircraft types photographed????? Loads of rotors | Tim | Rotorcraft | 0 | October 26th 03 08:49 PM |
F-4 chaff/flare loads | Bob Martin | Military Aviation | 25 | September 25th 03 03:36 PM |